Monday, 12 November 2012

In between trying to keep up with BBC resignations and writing obituries
for Newsnight, the frenzy around recent revelations about child sex
abuse in the UK has also centred a lot of attention on anonymity.

The
role of anonymity in sex crimes cases has always been a red button
issue. Victims and alleged victims of sexual crimes are guaranteed anonymity under law in the UK. They cannot in any circumstance, not even
under parliamentary privilege Lord Campbell Savours, be named in
public. This is in fact a criminal offence, punishable by a fine, as
seen last week by the case of 9 people who named the victim of Ched Evans. This anonymity is extended to victims of historic abuse and child
sex abuse no matter at what age they report or speak out.

Currently there is no guaranteed right of anonymity for those
accused of sexual crimes. This was in fact abolished by the Tory
government in 1988. It used to extend to everyone accused no matter what
age the victim was. I've blogged before about the current government's
aborted idea to reintroduce anonymity for those accused of rape against
adult victims and while I still acknowledge there are big flaws with that proposal, I remain generally convinced that while emotions are so high
and the system so poor, anonymity for accused but unconvicted sex
offenders should be considered again.

I'm afraid I just don't buy the line that if we kept people's names
anonymous before conviction it would affect the rate of conviction
because other victims couldn't come forward. Well, I don't know if
you've noticed, but the conviction rate is pretty piss poor under the
system we've got right now. Even in cases where multiple victims come
forward with identical allegations, they get ignored and nothing gets
done. The John Worboys case did not get the conviction it did because
the police allowed his name to be put forward. It didn't even get to
court because of the number of victims involved. It got to court (as did
Kirk Reid) because one officer pieced together several allegations over several years and because the Met held an internal investigation into the
entire Sapphire Unit based around six cases and it became apparent that
there was so much evidence against Worboys and Reid that the CPS
couldn't not prosecute. But here's the thing, all that evidence was
already there. It just hadn't been taken seriously until the Met was
forced to investigate itself.

Both men were convicted with a clear jury majority and very little
deliberation and sentenced to comparatively long sentences for their
crimes. Only then did the police release their names to the public and
appeal for further victims to come forward. They and the courts had used
the current rules to suppress the name through reporting restrictions
prior to conviction (basically to cover the Met's arse so their failings
didn't come out in such an obvious way.) Countless more women came
forward as victims of both men. No futher court cases have ever
happened. But somewhere along the line, the Worboys case has passed in
folklore as the example of how anonymity for the accused prevents
convictions. The Met trot it out a lot, but then again, they're
desperate to make themselves look good over Sapphire in any way. But annoyingly I see many feminists parrot the same line unquestioningly. I
think I remember the whole PR episode slightly differently over both
trials as my case was one of the six and I spent time dealing with both
the Met and the press over that time. Not once did the Met mention
either name even in private meetings with me about the issue nor did any
of journalists who contacted me wanting a victim's perspective about
police failings. In fact I was specifically asked by several journalists on both cases about the fact the names had been withheld
until conviction.

I'm not going to re-hash the stuff from the previous post as I think
I made myself clear, but I've had new concerns about anonymity since
then. The Savile scandal broke because Karin Ward was brave enough to
come forward to Newsnight and speak out while waiving her anonymity. I
applaud her for a decision of unbelievable bravery. But I also have a
worrying feeling about the precedent it set in the media and the
public's perception (none of which is Karin's fault.) It transpired that
there had been constant suspicion and accusation against Savile for
nigh on forty years. But it wasn't really taken seriously until someone
spoke out fully identifiably, creating an idea that unless a victim is
prepared to waive anonymity, their allegation isn't worth listening to.
It's raised the stakes. It's now not enough speak up, recount painful,
traumatic and desperately personal details, fight your own corner with
the police and CPS and in some cases, submit every single centimetre of
your body to forensic examination; now you need to declare your identity
to all as well.

Well, some of you might say, if you're going to accuse someone of a
terrible crime, you should be prepared to face them and them know who
accused them. But that misses the point. Anonymity only refers to public
anonymity. The police, the CPS, his defence team, the judge will all
know who you are. The fact they take pains to prevent that information
being easily ascertained in court documents or to the public gallery
doesn't prevent you as a victim having your entire life picked over to
persue a court case or your attacker not knowing who brought the case
against them (because it's the Crown that brings the case. Not the
victim. They simply become a witness to the case.) All I see that comes
out of waiving anonymity as a pre-requisite of an allegation being taken
seriously is that allows more opportunity to measure that survivor by
the arbitrary rules of the 'perfect victim' and since they are humans, not textbook examples, find them failing. This
allows society to be more likely to see victims as liars because they aren't matching the preconceptions people have and become hostile to them.

And not just that, I think it actually does the opposite to what the
people who are so worried about false allegations and people's
reputations being needlessly ruined want. It adds a gossipy
salaciousness that actually encourages trial by media and public instead
of considered trial by evidence. Look at the feeding frenzy over Savile where the
tabloids and gossip magazines have chased up every celebrity woman
Savile ever worked with and shown endless clips of him making Coleen
Nolan look like she wants to be sick as he manhandles her. It doesn't
actually validate the victims' abuse, but turns it into a spectator
sport ripe for comparison to everyone else's life. It actually minimises
the experience and bravery of survivors to do this because obviously no
footage exists of the rapes and more serious sexual assaults, so people see
Savile paw young women on primetime telly and think that's all there was
to it. Cue loads of people recounting the time some creepy old bastard
felt their arse and you didn't see them running the papers or police,
looking for money.

Oh yes, money. People who have never been sexually assaulted by
someone rich, famous and powerful seem to think it's akin to a good tip
on the gee-gees and a surefire way to get some cash. It never occurs to
them that the majority of victims speak out because they are trying to
defend themselves, seek justice and be heard after assault has rendered
them invisible. They think they just want a pay out and it's all about
greed because being attacked by a well known person is actually a
blessing, not an incredibly traumatising and isolating experience. They
have no idea that it's actually incredibly difficult to get compensation
for sexual crimes as you must fit very exacting criteria, including not
allowing the police to 'no crime' an allegation, the attacker not be
dead and that victims of child sex abuse who 'consented' are already
excluded from the criminal compensation criteria. They could of course
persue a private case for compensation from their attacker or their
estate, but legal aid for such cases have been withdrawn so they would
have to pay their own costs upfront for a case that might rumble on for
years and that has no guarantee of success and could leave them bankrupt
as well as traumatised. As ways to get rich go, it's about as failsafe
as a trip to Ladbrokes, but you don't get free tea or coffee.

And if you do get awarded any form of compensation, you will have
your character further assassinated and see even more gossipy interest
in the person who attacked you. Sunday's hatchet job by the Mail on
Stephen Messham mainly seems to focus on the fact he was compensated for
the systemic abuse he suffered as a child. Put bluntly, where there's a
payout, there's guilt. No one pays out thousands of pounds to someone
who alleged sexual abuse unless something happened. So when Messham
spoke out about a senior Tory abusing him, everyone knew there was a
story. Newsnight knew who Messham was (obviously) and because he'd
spoken out before using his identity, they could build a report and a
backstory without even checking things with him. His payout was their
guarantee he'd be taken seriously when they broadcast the piece as it
showed legitimacy as a victim. It's also the very thing that the Mail
and David Mellor and others have used to slam Messham now that it has
come out that he misidentified the Lord in question.

Declaring his identity and refusing to be shamed by being a victim
has been used as a tug of war over Messham with both camps pulling and
pushing and leading to an appalling situation where the victim has had
to apologise and everyone else escapes blame and navel gazes. Newsnight
knew fine rightly that the teaser of an identifiable victim, a political
connection and society's need to look like it was being tough on abuse
would lead to people naming names without proof. And they did in droves.
Some did it because they genuinely thought they were protecting
potential victims, others did it because their desire for gossip and
political point scoring was greater than the desire for justice, some
wanted to bait the PM and get good ratings. But the name of a man who
did not abuse children got put out there and burned down the Bush
Telegraph of the internet.

Everyone should have known better. They prejudiced any potential
trial, they showed themselves to be shallow and not really concerned
with the victims, they slandered the accused's name and they destroyed
the reputation of the abuse victim. It was a perfect storm of
supposition, presumed certainty and intrigue and in my opinion, none of
it would have happened if Stephen Messham hadn't been identified so
clearly. I don't know if he wanted to be identified for personal reasons
and I respect him if he was willing to do that, but what I object to is
Newsnight allowing him to do that without checking the details properly
because what they did was make him the face that people associated with
the scandal so when it went tits up, no one had an image and a name in
their mind for the editor of Newsnight. Entwhistle might have gone over
it, but it's Messham people are writing personal pieces about it that
dredge up his life, family history and reputation. No one's asking if
the middle class Newsnight editor involved might have become an attention seeker
because his parents sent him to piano lessons at 8.

Newsnight had a duty of care to a traumatised man with a
history of serious psychiatric problems and they fucked up completely. I am not
suggesting that survivors are fragile little flowers who should be
treated as damaged goods who cannot have opinions and speak for
themselves, but I am suggesting that the media doesn't just run for short term ratings and hang a victim out to dry to get them.
They should talk through the potential consequences and offer support if
the survivor still decides to speak out with anonymity. But that's not
happening. I've done a lot of press over the years about my rapes in
various guises and still do if I feel it is helpful. It used to be very
very rare to be asked to waive anonymity, but it has become increasingly
standard. Just last Thursday I was asked (indirectly, not just me)
through the women's org I volunteer for to speak to Glamour magazine,
but only if I agreed to be photographed and identified. Cosmopolitan and
Grazia do the same. Personally I don't think the organisation should be
asking their clients to do this even if it guarantees publicity and
funds for the scheme and I declined, stating that fact. If a survivor
wants to speak out using their identity, then I'm not going to stop them
or criticise them, but I'm going to speak up about the press
blackmailing us by only covering sexual violence if anonymity is waived.

That makes me hugely uncomfortable. It plays into many rape myths
and the idea of the 'perfect victim' in a very unhelpful way. Women's
magazines will only feature the 'right' person: pretty, thin, white,
middle class, probably had a conviction in their case or an 'acceptable' type of rape
such a stranger/stalker rape. Not for
the glossies will women who might fat, trans*, gay or bi, sexually
active outside a relationship, working class, drink alcohol, take drugs
or have been groomed be rape victims. Men will continue be invisible as
victims and women will continue to minimise their experiences as 'not
real rape' and so not seek justice and blame themselves not their
attacker. The fact that 80% of victims know their attacker will be
ignored and we'll continue to be asked to change our behaviour, not
tackle rape culture and patriarchy. Cosmo will carry on printing 'good
news' rape stories even though they seem to have relaxed their policy on
only featuring victims who aren't single because to them rape isn't the
tragedy, it's the fact you might end up single because of it. Much
easier to push the idea that the thing to help you overcome the actions
of a man attacking you is to find the love of a good man rather than
seek to campaign for justice and resources, speak up about the culture
that silences victims and allow women especially to support each other.

You, in this day and age of the internet when all prospective
employers and partners Google you, are asked to permanently link your
name to the crime committed against you so that a magazine or TV show
gets its prize and moves on. It's actually long term victimisation that
never allows survivors to move on and rebuild their lives. It's
condemning them to be 'damaged goods' and feels like punishing them for
speaking out like seems to have happened to Dominique Strauss Kahn's
victim in New York. And it's not strictly neccesary to get the message
out. I have successfully spoken out widely and never revealed my
identity. 99% of media (print, radio and TV) have been very happy for me
to use my alter ego Helen Jones and never asked me to reveal the real
me. In fact I considered doing so over my compensation and the BBC journalist refused to take the case if I did. My family also asked me
not to since we have such an obvious name and my solicitor advised me
not to. Plenty of people do know who I am and yet they've never exposed
me or accidentally revealed me and in hindsight, I'm glad I didn't
expose my identity when actively campaigning. But when I was utterly
possessed by the need to be taken seriously and heard by someone because
the police had let me down so much, I could very easily have thought
that it was the magic bullet to declare my identity and done so, only to
have been left to deal with the consequences by myself for years to
come. The media can be very persuasive and I'm concerned they sell a
scenario to trusting and desperate people who think the reporter really
really cares because they've spent hours listening to your story and I
think anyone who waives anonymity should have some support and advocacy
when doing so.

But the media also has a role to play and that
role is to stop putting pressure on survivors and seeing them only as
the means to an end. I'd like it if we could expand the discourse on
sexual violence and get people talking about it more, but ultimately I
think in this case it would be better to have less said in the media,
but much better than risk repeating the truly cavalier attitudes of
recent weeks that have put survivors under unbearable pressure,
threatened innocent people's reputations, made it easier for guilty
parties to hide in the shadows and made it more overwhelming and
difficult to report rape of any sort. I'm not suggesting anonymity for
both parties would solve all the problems of this rape culture and
everything will be glitter and kittens in comparison, but the situation
isn't working right now and no one in the media, let alone Leveson, is
addressing it any other way so I'm not sure what else can be done that
makes an immediate difference?

About Me

I started this blog as a way to talk to myself as I worked my way toward rebuilding my life after experiencing two rapes. Then other people started reading it too and I realised talking about myself wasn't enough and expanded it to having an opinion on everything, especially women and sexual violence. I want this to be a safe welcoming space so please assume all posts need a trigger warning for rape, PTSD, general trauma related crappiness and bad jokes. I'm thrilled anyone reads it and want everyone to feel welcome, including men who may have been victims. I talk about rape from a woman's perspective as that's my own experience, but don't want to exclude anyone who doesn't feel their experience is the same. Feel free to browse or make comments. These are moderated so any apologist crap hits the bin, but not to boost my ego. Anonymous comments or pseudonyms are fine by me since I only blog anonymously myself. Thanks for reading. I do reward you with the odd lighthearted post as well...